Axe FEMA, Romney Says — as Sandy Looms

That's right: just like Greece you've got filthy rich people who ship their money to the Cayman Islands rather than paying taxes. One of them is running for President right now.

 

Yes. We all saw how "efficient" FEMA was in New Orleans. Perhaps you should review my link.

But then if you did that, how could you remain so biased in favor of Big Bloated Government?

 

Oh. Adding 50 state agencies that all do kind of the same job would not be "big bloated government"?

No thanks. My point stands. One agency is more efficient than 51. Makes sense to have one agency going to various places and taking care of what they need than to have 51, with the vast majority standing around doing nothing mos the time.

 

State and Local authorities are best to manage natural disasters.Federalism is a concept Big Government Liberals can't seem to understand.They seem to think Big Government is the answer to everything.

 

Thats because it is when it comes to big issues like Hurricanes and other natural disasters. States are the worst at dealing with any kind of disaster.

OH and it seems the damage estimate is already up to 20 billion.....I guess NY and NJ can just spend that without a problem. Please, you states rights people are a joke.

 

Only when it becomes unwieldy to have 51 different answers.

 

Here we go again with Romney's taxes.You can't seem to let that go,can you?So,you think the problem is tax more,spend more?Where the hell has that ever worked??Is it working right now?4 years of trillion dollar deficits?Hell,they haven't even passed a (*)(*)(*)(*) budget.
Glasshouse Rules,Libs~>Don't accuse Romney of being a tax cheat,but say nothing about Obama's jobs czar (GE CEO) not paying taxes,Geitner ,Sebelius cheating on taxes.Oh,and another glasshouse rule-Don't complain about Romney's Cayman Island account,but say nothing about Debbie Wasserman Shultz's offshore accounts.It really makes you look like hypocrites.

 

Obamas Jobs Czar (Jeffery Immelt), Geitner, Sebelius, Shultz all have one thing in common. NOT RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT!

 

I'm going to really enjoy watching your heads explode November 6.

 

Find me a state that does not already have an emergency management agency of some sort. There is already a system in place and what can FEMA do for nearly 14 billion dollars that the states themselves couldn't with a share of that money?

You must be a fan of costly, bloated, redundant bureacracy. *Mod Edit* for Trolling and insults

FEMA is not efficient at all and hurricane Katrina demonstrated that to the nation. Either you are too lazy to read a laundry list of the incredible bureaucratic blunders in New Orleans I provided or too dishonest to admit it.

And I'm absolutely certain you are unaware of how FEMA has been absorbed by the Department of Homeland Security and a good deal of it's funds and priorities have been shifted from dealing with natural disasters (it's supposed purpose for being) to becoming yet another terrorist fighting entity inside the DHS monstrosity.

"Hurricane Katrina in 2005 demonstrated that the vision of further unification of functions and another reorganization could not address the problems FEMA had previously faced. The "Final Report of the Select Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina", released February 15, 2006 by the U.S. Government Printing Office, revealed that federal funding to states for “all hazards” disaster preparedness needs was not awarded unless the local agencies made the purposes for the funding a “just terrorism” function. (so FEMA withheld funds to states for natural disasters unless states pledged to join in the DHS sham war on terrorism...how noble and sensible when your state is being flooded or burnt to death)

Emergency management professionals testified that funds for preparedness for natural hazards was given less priority than preparations for counter terrorism measures. Testimony also expressed the opinion that the mission to mitigate vulnerability and prepare for natural hazard disasters before they occurred had been separated from disaster preparedness functions, making the nation more vulnerable to known hazards, like hurricanes.

If nothing else, if the states were freed from the yoke of DHS and FEMA then they would decide if their time, resources and money were better spent dealing with earthquakes and floods, or preparing for an attack from some nebulous Middle Eastern boogeyman.
I sincerely hope President Romney is serious about dismantling FEMA and giving power back to the states, instead of continuing the sham game that causes states to jump through useless hoops in order to get assistance from the government.

 

My original premise stands. One agency is more efficient than 51 different agencies.

 

Gee, I would have thought , of ANY state, Texas would have felt the strongest on this issue and NOT been BEGGING the Federal government and Obama for help for wildfires, and then crying like babies when he didn't send enough money to pay for EVERYTHING.

Especially snce Texas GETS more tax money than it sends to the feds, they should have kept their mouths shut if this issue wasn't anything more than a "bash Obama" hypocritical position.

 

Are you aware that simply repeating a belief over and over doesn't make it so?

I took the time and effort to put real substance and information in my argument. You?....nothing.
Your level of intellectual effort is practically nil and what there is of it consists primarily of typing.

 

All you argued was that the agency needs to be run better, not that 51 states all with their own plan will be able to respond to a multi-state emergency more efficiently.

 

The idea is that each state responds to their own concerns so the idea of a "multi state" disaster is pointless.

And if Idaho, let's say, has a forest fire they have to tackle there is no more dealing with the bureaucrats at FEMA that won't release all monies needed until Idaho agrees to shift some of there efforts to assist DHS with their sham war on terrorism.
Every bit of Idaho's effort can be concentrated by Idaho on what Idaho feels is best and needs. How is that not better?

 

So severing FEMA from the DHS would stop that. Plus, if the Fire spreads, or rages so much that it becomes to much for Idaho to deal with on its own, that doesn't mean its left to burn.

The States aren't Superman. They can't do everything on their own. If they did, it would just be the States of America.

 

I agree this would be a very good idea.
But how likely is that?

I'm very sure that, as now is the practice, neighboring states realize that Idaho's problems may become their own if they don't help out when necessary. Fires don't stop precisely at state lines.

So FEMA is Superman and can solve all problems simply by showing up? Their multi billion dollar budget would be better spent at the source. Funny, when Bush was in office FEMA was considered the pinnacle of bungling bureacratic idiocy.

Now all of a sudden it's indespensible.

 

Let's do it right now.

For a number of years libs have been predicting more violent weather patterns as one consequence of man-made global warming.

Obama promised to reverse the man-made global warming trend as president.

Maybe if he had kept that promise Big Sandy would be Little Sandy and perhaps not even have a name at all.

There, happy now?

 

Untrue. The smart way is to grow the economy. That's going to take some short term stimulus spending, to increase jobs and demand. Moderate tax increases on top income and capital gains earners in the beginning, then the middle class as the economy is recovered. The cuts will have to be in ending the Bush wars (one down, one to go) and regulatory actions to help foster growth of industry and jobs in the US.

Romney: Job killer
http://www.epi.org/publication/ib343-obama-romney-job-growth/

Romney: Deficit spender
http://www.businessinsider.com/how-romney-plan-will-affect-debt-2012-9?op=1

 

As a loyal Obama zombie - even a foreigner - you should know that there are 57 states not 51.

 

Obama has already tried to stimulate the economy by borrowing and government deficit spending.

It failed.

 

Ben Stein Stuns Fox news about Mitt Romney tax cut
[video=youtube;vs6Cw2h5G9Q]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vs6Cw2h5G9Q[/video]

You have to both cut spending AND raise taxes.

But I would suggest that FEMA would not be a good thing to cut, especially with teh annual storms the USA suffers, which seem to get worse, year upon year.

 

Dupe, deleted

 

Dupe, deleted

 

Yes I know.

You only want my country to cut defense spending and let the rest of the budget grow.

Then you want to raise taxes on the rich till they beg for mercy.

And if that does not balance the budget - which it surly won't - then just borrow for as long as the party can go on.

After that who knows?

Maybe a popular uprising and a brand new communist state and a "progressive" nirvana that libs have dreamed of for so long.